970 memory allocation issue revisited (Part 2)

http://www.computerbase.de/2014-05/amd-radeon-r9-290-290x-roundup-test/

An article comparing a good number of 290/290X from different vendors. Vapor X all the way!

 

I'll help you out as you obviously had trouble understanding what I wrote and/or meant, and never saw or read his initial comment (which i've provided kindly for you below). I will leave out any attempt at humour in my post, as I like them to be actually funny before doing such things, unlike some.

PeterS this now famous nVidia employee said this

He changed it to this

So as I said in my first post, he removed all traces of the refund line.

 

This basically means that a GTX970 will never become a GTX980.

 

That's bad news right there, was actually hoping for something of a miracle driver.

So basically - it is what it is, deal with it and move on.

 

Maybe I'm completely off, but how should a driver help with hardware schematics... a driver won't fix a lower bandwidth connection for that 0.5 anyhow. Any 'fixes' would only apply to how the driver handles that partition, no?

 

So that is why unhappy GTX970 owners should go for a R9 290X which beats the GTX790 in very few games with 2-3 fps?

And that is not marketing, that is taking advantage of someone's unfortunate situation.
So not classy at all.

 

I wonder how people expected that a driver update would fix it.
Everyone knew at that point that the hardware specs where lower, which means laser-cut, since they probably didn't take the risk just to disable via BIOS.

There might be something that the driver addresses wrongly for certain games which shouldn't use the 500MB partition while there still is plenty of place on the 3.5GB partition, some user reports indicate that there is such a bug in the driver.
But to fix that the 500MB works faster via a driver update? No way, that is something I need to see to believe.

 

That is a reference to the G-Sync claim someone brought up, which turned out to be fake btw.

I found "they way it is meant to be gimped" funny, the rest is to biased, to much mud throwing used as propaganda for AMD series cards.

 

Anyone with a GTX970 SLI setup that could test how the cards differ when the benchmark is done while on of them is set to handle AA instead of having them in one of the regular SLI modes?
Could be interesting to see how that result compares to doing the same thing with regular SLI, not the average fps but the drop difference.

 

I'm no expert on the subject so I don't know for sure. nV rep did talk about a driver on the GeForce forums though so I had to take his word for it. Though it was later demented by Kitguru (through an official statement from nV).

 

My R7 240 uses a "custom" board and it's done just fine for the last several months. Granted, it is an entry-level card and all, but it's still pretty easy to screw up.

Drivers can be used to tune memory usage, to an extent.

I wasn't attacking AMD. If I were in their position, I'd be looking to take advantage of the situation as well. NVidia screwed the pooch here... They lied about specs. They're refusing to do anything to "make up" for it. They're really starting to show their true colors. I love NVidia's products, but the company itself appears to have become quite anti-customer from where I'm sitting.

 

In the last two years since the release of Titan, the development of gpus has been stagnate due to poor availability of 20 (or 16) nm node. Because of this, the performance of gtx780, 780Ti, Titan, Titan Black, gtx 970, and gtx 980 is not much different between each other. For 4K display, you need at least three SLIs to run most of games at the level of OK (but not great). The AMD side is pretty much the same. The real improvement will happen next year after both AMD and Nvidia start to release their gpus based on 16nm node. Therefore no matter which gpus you buy at this moment, the value of these gpus won't last long (1-1.5 years). This is also the reason why most of high-end Kepler owners don't upgrade to Maxwell gpus. In this sense, I think that it is better not to spend a lot of money for the current generation of gpus no matter which you get, AMD or Nvidia. If you buy gtx980 4GB now, a year later you will be in a similar position to the owners of gtx680 2GB when Titan and then gtx 780 were released. Simply it is not worth to spend a lot of money for any gpus at this moment. Frankly I feel that, even with 3.5GB issue, the purchase of gtx 970 was a wise decision, considering that any current high-end gpus won't retain their value for a long time and that gtx970 performs very well at 1080p/1440p.

 

I had a huge fiasco with my custom PCB 6950's. Had two of them 1GB models and they would random black/white striped screen when switching to 3D clocks when back and forth with their tech. assistance and just gave up and returned them to CompUSA and replaced them with the 2GB reference models which sounded like jet engines and got hot as Hell but at least they worked.

With ASUS I had a bad experience with a 7970 DCU2 unstable at stock clocks with voltage locked unless I voided the warranty and used a rheostat. This is why I am currently using Nvidia.

Only Nvidia card I had the slightest issue with was the 770 lightning that would not overclock past 1306/7008 and for a overclocking card that was pathetic.

 

SHOCKING interview with Nvidia engineer about the 970 fiasco

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spZJrsssPA0

 

The video was removed.

 

Try the op's link it works for me..

 

Now the video comes up when I click the link. Strange.